On 21/07/2015 16:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/07/2015 13:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:28:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?
Running out of scapegoats?


The present mess is somewhat better than the 70's.
A lot of it is caused by unions getting too much pension commitment from
previous governments as part of hiding what the real public sector pay
was worth. Just in case you didn't know the pensions in the public
sector are worth about a 20% rise making most public sectors much better
paid than most other workers.

Now let me see. Maggie closed down the mines because they weren't
profitable.

Maggie stopped the power stations burning coal because the miners were
using it as a weapon.

All the fault of the unions.

Yes.
Obviously if there is nowhere to burn it then it has to close.

More or less the same with much
other heavy industry.

I doubt if maggie had anything to do with that, just plain economics and
expensive labour with restrictive working practices as can be seen by
the fact the automated plants closed later than the ones with too much
manpower.


Now you're saying successive governments gave in to public sector demands
for excessive pensions without a murmer?

Yes, and they allowed far too many public service jobs to be created for
doing sod all other than make work for other public service workers.

Why do you think the massive cuts haven't impacted on most people?

"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:20:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?

Sorry, are you suggesting they're even vaguely comparable?


At the moment, the taxpayer is subsidising employers profits to the tune of £76
billion per annum, as a result of the starvation level wages being paid to their
non union workers

" There are some estimates that whilst £8bn on benefits goes to the unemployed,
an estimated £76bn goes to people who are working."

the quote is from Rupert Murdoch's Sky News

http://news.sky.com/story/1513826/wo...f-welfare-cuts

As a matter of interest do you know how much taxpayers money governments prior to
1979 had to dole out to people who were actually in employment ?

A figure to the nearest ten billion will do.


michael adams

....

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:33:06 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?

Sorry, are you suggesting they're even vaguely comparable?

At the moment, the taxpayer is subsidising employers profits to the tune
of £76 billion per annum, as a result of the starvation level wages
being paid to their non union workers

Small problem with that claim - the legal minimum wage is already about a
quid an hour above the "living wage" for a couple, both working full
time, no kids.

The other small problem, of course, is that it has nothing to do with the
actual question.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:05:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Crikey. And you don't think the crappy design of much of the product
mattered?

I'll give you a clue. The Japanese made their reputation by selling
pretty ordinary cars which were designed to last their service life
without breaking down.

We're clearly thinking of different 1970s Japanese cars. The ones I'm
thinking of rotted even worse than their contemporary European rivals -
and that really was saying something.

It was into the '80s when the Japanese motor industry really started to
become a force to be reckoned with. About a decade after BL's nadir.

On 21/07/15 16:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?
Running out of scapegoats?

damage was permanent. Now manufacturing and mining have moved to cheaper
places in the world.

Doesn't quite add up given that the BMW Mini and Jaguar/Land Rover are
made here and very profitable. As well as others. Given they all failed
big time under BL.

Welfare means no one will work for far east wages anymore, and that's
that.

We've had 'welfare' for getting on for 70 years.

Globalisation was inevitable, and only Luddite Lefties couldn't see it.

Right. So nothing whatsoever to do with the unions. Took some time - but
at least we got you there in the end.

everything to do with the unions. Others grasped the globalised concept:
the Luddite Unions resisted change and destroyed an industry instead.




--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 21/07/15 17:40, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:05:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Crikey. And you don't think the crappy design of much of the product
mattered?

I'll give you a clue. The Japanese made their reputation by selling
pretty ordinary cars which were designed to last their service life
without breaking down.

We're clearly thinking of different 1970s Japanese cars. The ones I'm
thinking of rotted even worse than their contemporary European rivals -
and that really was saying something.

It was into the '80s when the Japanese motor industry really started to
become a force to be reckoned with. About a decade after BL's nadir.

yeah. German cars were then built to run all day at 100mph/full throttle.

Uk cars were not.

But then the Germans didnt have to pay back any war debt, or indeed
safeguard W Europe with any armaments. They just got free US money to
rebuild industry and we had to pay enormous debts to the yanks.

In essence we paid Germany for losing the war.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:33:06 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?

Sorry, are you suggesting they're even vaguely comparable?

At the moment, the taxpayer is subsidising employers profits to the tune
of £76 billion per annum, as a result of the starvation level wages
being paid to their non union workers

Small problem with that claim - the legal minimum wage is already about a
quid an hour above the "living wage" for a couple, both working full
time, no kids.

I notice you've snipped the quote I included, which was taken directly from
Rupert Murdoch's "Sky News".

So here it is again, with the link

" There are some estimates that whilst £8bn on benefits goes to the unemployed,
an estimated £76bn goes to people who are working."

http://news.sky.com/story/1513826/wo...f-welfare-cuts

I include the link so you could check for yourself that nothing is being made up.

So are you saying that Rupert Murdoch's "Sky News" are lying ?

Or that their figures are correct, but that the UK Govt has made some sort of "mistake"
in doling out £76 billion of taxpayers money, when you've proved it here on UseNet
that they needn't have done ?

So which is it ?

A Murdoch lie, or a big Government mistake ?



The other small problem, of course, is that it has nothing to do with the
actual question.

The actual question was whether the UK is presently in a mess comparable to
that which existed prior to Thatcher.

I'm suggesting that any country that has to subsidise low wages to the extent
of 76bn a year with taxpayers money, is most definitely in a mess.
With a government which is clearly in the pockets of a small minority
of employers to the exclusion of everybody else.

Which is a situation which can't last indefinitely and which nobody should
welcome whoever they are.


michael adams

....

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 12:03:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
But you do realise secret ballots for any kind of industrial action
have been the law for some 30 years now?

yes and that's why I believe in secret ballots beign done the way
the are now. Because a person can be intimidted either way to raise
or not raise your hand for any vote.

Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily
intimidated by a few militants.

Wouldn't know myself, I've not be a miner. I remeber this and I would
certainly be intimidated by the few or one that did this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2512469.stm

What has that got to do with intimidation at a show of hands vote?



Does this ring true to you, dave?

Does what ring true ?


Would you personally be easy to intimidate by a few when surrounded by
your pals?

That makes little sense if any sense.

How? It's been said here that on a show of hands vote, many will be
intimidated into voting yes by a few militants. Hence the need for secret
ballots. I just asked if it would apply to you. Or any others on here.


As it depends on the strenght of your pals too. Not that Hitler being
one person could intimidate anyone !

In his early days, Hitler managed to get majority support through the
strength of his oratory. Didn't need to intimidate anyone - although he
obviously did later.

--
*Middle age is when work is a lot less fun - and fun a lot more work.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily
intimidated by a few militants.

I bet it would be easy to intimidate you, all they need do is chuck a
few bricks through your house windows, why would a miner care less about
his family than you (probably) do?

Not surprisingly you are missing the point.

Miners and others were said to be intimidated at a 'show of hands vote'
into voting for action they didn't want to, by a few militants. Hence the
need for a secret vote.

Or are you suggesting they knew they'd get a brick through their window if
they voted against?

--
*Beware - animal lover - brakes for pussy*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Don't be a sap. D'ye think that in the 50s/60s, people were not getting
fed up with unions, wild cat strikes, sympathy strikes, picket lines,
flying pickets, closed shops, and possibly other things I have
forgotten?

The majority of self styled working class people certainly weren't getting
fed up with unions, wild cat strikes, sympathy strikes, picket lines,
flying pickets, closed shops or any of those things.

Apart from some affluent factory workers in the south in the late 30's
and factory workers on piece rates during the war the 50's and 60's were
the first and only time when that section of the population ever got what they
regarded as their just deserts.

But as with the middle class houswives who tired of post war rationing
and made their voices felt and eventually succeeded in unseating Labour,
there's no doubt that middle class differentials were being undermined
in the 60's.





Maggie got in because people had had enough.,

They'd had enough of "Sunny Jim", that's true enough. Who was forever promising
to deliver the unions and was failing to do so. His Heathrow press conference following
the Guadaloupe summit, regaling shivering reporters in a winter bound
Heathrow with his tales of swimming in the warm Caribbean between sessions
is what prompted Larry Lamb to run to the wholly aprochryphal
"Crisis what Crisis ?" headline in the next day's "Sun".

Elections are there to be lost as well a won and it was a combination of
a wholly complacent "Sunny Jim" who should have gone in the autumn
but didn't, and accelerated and guaranteed Council House sales, what
swung it.


michael adams

....

On 21/07/2015 18:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily
intimidated by a few militants.

I bet it would be easy to intimidate you, all they need do is chuck a
few bricks through your house windows, why would a miner care less about
his family than you (probably) do?

Not surprisingly you are missing the point.

Miners and others were said to be intimidated at a 'show of hands vote'
into voting for action they didn't want to, by a few militants. Hence the
need for a secret vote.

Or are you suggesting they knew they'd get a brick through their window if
they voted against?


Why are you acting thick?
Have you been to see a doctor as you seem to be behaving in an odd
manner and I think you need to investigate.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:24:49 +0100, michael adams wrote:

The majority of self styled working class people certainly weren't
^^^^^^^^^^^
getting fed up with unions, wild cat strikes, sympathy strikes, picket
lines, flying pickets, closed shops or any of those things.

Yeh, I think you've got it nailed there.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:56:25 +0100, michael adams wrote:

So are you saying that Rupert Murdoch's "Sky News" are lying ?

Frankly, I'd double-check the date, let alone the weather forecast.

But I snipped it because it was irrelevant, as I explained in the post
you've just replied to.

The other small problem, of course, is that it has nothing to do with
the actual question.

The actual question was whether the UK is presently in a mess comparable
to that which existed prior to Thatcher.

Correct.

And you chose to ignore it.

Here's some clues...

Three-day week. Winter of discontent. 24% inflation. Sterling
devaluation. IMF bailout.

"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:24:49 +0100, michael adams wrote:

The majority of self styled working class people certainly weren't
^^^^^^^^^^^
getting fed up with unions, wild cat strikes, sympathy strikes, picket
lines, flying pickets, closed shops or any of those things.

Yeh, I think you've got it nailed there.

quote

Last Updated: Thursday, 25 January 2007, 13:06 GMT

" According to a survey of social attitudes, 57% of adults in the UK claim to be
working class. "

/quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6295743.stm

So that's a clear majority of 57% considered themselves to be working class
as late as 2007

So how big do you think the majority was,in the 50's,60's,and 70's ?

Another question that will go unanswered, no doubt.


michael adams

....

"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:56:25 +0100, michael adams wrote:

So are you saying that Rupert Murdoch's "Sky News" are lying ?

Frankly, I'd double-check the date, let alone the weather forecast.

But I snipped it because it was irrelevant, as I explained in the post
you've just replied to.

The other small problem, of course, is that it has nothing to do with
the actual question.

The actual question was whether the UK is presently in a mess comparable
to that which existed prior to Thatcher.

Correct.

And you chose to ignore it.

Here's some clues...

Three-day week. Winter of discontent. 24% inflation. Sterling
devaluation. IMF bailout.


And here's my clue. What do you think the current rate of Unemployment would be
right now in the UK, if employers weren't being subsidised to the tune of
£ 76bn to keep people off the dole ? Jobs which in many instances
presumably wouldn't even exist ?

So much for "Labour Isn't Working".

Despite already using up £billions of oil revenue to what purpose exactly ?

Today's News

quote

Draw up 40% cuts plans, ministers told

Some government departments are told to prepare for a 40% cut in their budgets
as Chancellor George Osborne launches his spending review.

/quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

This is what you mean, I take it, by "successful government"

Or maybe to quote from a much quoted film

"I'm All Right Jack, so that's O.K ?"


michael adams

....

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

cock.

willy, willy, bum.


michael adams

...

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:40:18 +0100, michael adams wrote:

" According to a survey of social attitudes, 57% of adults in the UK
claim to be working class. "

Lovely, an' all.

So if that had anything at all to do with supporting unions, how come in
2005 only 35% voted Labour, in 2010 29%, and this year 30%?

So how big do you think the majority was,in the 50's,60's,and 70's ?

I neither know nor care.

"Working class" might have actually _meant_ something in the '50s, but
even by that stage it was an anachronism. By the '60s it was becoming
increasingly irrelevant, and by the '70s it was almost entirely ********.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
It's also odd that some insist on secret ballots where they feel ever so
sure it would benefit their narrow views, but on one of the most
fundamental principles of UK justice, the jury system, such a vote is
open.

First parliament now the jury system. Where next in your desperate
attempts to avoid accepting that the changes proposed are reasonable and
proportionate.

Just shows your priorities. Foaming at the mouth over strikes, when there
are far more important ills in the country which need sorting.

And the strikes get in the way of solving those problems.
Basically they wish any goalposts moved in an attempt to get the result
they want. Regardless if it is a majority view or not.

Who is "they" in this context?

You'll do.

Yet again you attempt insult to divert from the paucity of your
arguments.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
The more I read on here, the more I realise very few have much in the
way of actual experience in how unions work.

You certainly don't know how they worked in the motor industry.

Certainly know that BL cut many corners with their car design and assembly.
So not unreasonable to say they did exactly the same with industrial
relations.

So yourself-proclaimed knowledge of how trade unions operated is based
on the design of motor cars.
As for quality of assembly BMC management and its successors had many
flaws but assembling Friday afternoon cars wasn't one of them.
--
bert

"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:40:18 +0100, michael adams wrote:

" According to a survey of social attitudes, 57% of adults in the UK
claim to be working class. "

Lovely, an' all.

So if that had anything at all to do with supporting unions, how come in
2005 only 35% voted Labour, in 2010 29%, and this year 30%?

What's that got to do with anything ?

You previously agreed with me when I posted

"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:24:49 +0100, michael adams wrote:

The majority of self styled working class people certainly weren't
^^^^^^^^^^^
getting fed up with unions, wild cat strikes, sympathy strikes, picket
lines, flying pickets, closed shops or any of those things.

Yeh, I think you've got it nailed there.

To repeat "I think you've got it nailed there."

Only to suddenly change your mind, and attempt to move the goalposts
when you realise just how many people actually consider themselves
to be working class.

Or perhaps as with Rupert Murdoch, you're now going to claim that the people
who conduct the annual British Social Attitudes survey from the National Centre
for Social Research are all liars as well ?


michael adams

....

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
The more I read on here, the more I realise very few have much in the
way of actual experience in how unions work.

You certainly don't know how they worked in the motor industry.

Certainly know that BL cut many corners with their car design and
assembly. So not unreasonable to say they did exactly the same with
industrial relations.


Strangely enough, I do know how they worked in the car industry. Very
badly is the best description. The union acted to extort as much money
as possible from the management and the management gave in to them to
keep production moving. The management were terrified of the
shareholders and would do anything to avoid a stoppage. BL finally saw
the light and faced down a strike, but the value of the company had been
destroyed by that time, so it went to the wall. AIUI, some of the
workers were re-employed but at lower wages, which have now improved.

Crikey. And you don't think the crappy design of much of the product
mattered?

I'll give you a clue. The Japanese made their reputation by selling pretty
ordinary cars which were designed to last their service life without
breaking down. Something BL couldn't manage. Most of their products were
sold without the exhaustive testing to produce a reliable design. All
about trying to get the maximum short terms profits for their
shareholders. Easy enough to find out the lack of investment in BL
compared to successful car makers elsewhere.

The first Japanese cars here were absolute crap and rusted away at the
first hint of salt.
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:05:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Crikey. And you don't think the crappy design of much of the product
mattered?

I'll give you a clue. The Japanese made their reputation by selling
pretty ordinary cars which were designed to last their service life
without breaking down.

We're clearly thinking of different 1970s Japanese cars. The ones I'm
thinking of rotted even worse than their contemporary European rivals -
and that really was saying something.

It was into the '80s when the Japanese motor industry really started to
become a force to be reckoned with. About a decade after BL's nadir.
+1
--
bert

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/07/15 11:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Have you thought about seeking help?


Have you?

Mind you, being a dinosaur is generally terminal.


+1
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...

And why were they made illegal? (For the benefit of Dave this is a
rhetorical question)

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Yeah Holding the country to ransom and bringing down a democratically
elected government.
But don't let the fact that this legislation didn't have the hoped for
result influence you.

You obviously haven't let the fact that this legislation achieved it
objective of democratising trade unions influence you
Just another example of knee jerk legislation designed to get applause
from the Tory press.

Whatever
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?
Running out of scapegoats?

damage was permanent. Now manufacturing and mining have moved to cheaper
places in the world.

Doesn't quite add up given that the BMW Mini and Jaguar/Land Rover are
made here and very profitable. As well as others. Given they all failed
big time under BL.

Because as said earlier the overseas investors have benefited from the
democratisation of the union which has shown that the majority of
workers in the private sector realise that there is a balance to be
struck. BL was destroyed by the unions in accordance with the Trotskyite
aims of its shop stewards and the overseas investors picked up the best
bits. Ford actually failed with JL then sold to Tata. In the public
sector (and I include the BBC) they still think money grows on trees and
the rest of the world owes us a living.
Welfare means no one will work for far east wages anymore, and that's
that.

We've had 'welfare' for getting on for 70 years.

Globalisation was inevitable, and only Luddite Lefties couldn't see it.

Right. So nothing whatsoever to do with the unions. Took some time - but
at least we got you there in the end.

Not quite. The public sector unions esp train drivers and teachers still
need to be sorted hence the new legislation. That just leaves the BBC
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/07/2015 13:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:28:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?
Running out of scapegoats?


The present mess is somewhat better than the 70's.
A lot of it is caused by unions getting too much pension commitment from
previous governments as part of hiding what the real public sector pay
was worth. Just in case you didn't know the pensions in the public
sector are worth about a 20% rise making most public sectors much better
paid than most other workers.

Now let me see. Maggie closed down the mines because they weren't
profitable.
The majority were not economic - and most mines were closed by Labour
All the fault of the unions.
Scargill was to blame for the pace of closure because he turned it into
a political battle for his own ends. So no phased closures, no support
for communities. No funding for redeployment all of which were achieved
by his predecessor with various governments.
More or less the same with much
other heavy industry.

You're beginning to learn some economic truths.
Now you're saying successive governments gave in to public sector demands
for excessive pensions without a murmer?

That's about the sum of it. Gordon Brown especially with his bonuses for
everyone, trying to buy votes for Labour. His answer to everything -
throw money at it, including the Scottish Referendum
--
bert

In article , michael adams
writes

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:33:06 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?

Sorry, are you suggesting they're even vaguely comparable?

At the moment, the taxpayer is subsidising employers profits to the tune
of £76 billion per annum, as a result of the starvation level wages
being paid to their non union workers

Small problem with that claim - the legal minimum wage is already about a
quid an hour above the "living wage" for a couple, both working full
time, no kids.

I notice you've snipped the quote I included, which was taken directly from
Rupert Murdoch's "Sky News".

So here it is again, with the link

" There are some estimates that whilst £8bn on benefits goes to the unemployed,
an estimated £76bn goes to people who are working."

http://news.sky.com/story/1513826/wo...f-welfare-cuts

I include the link so you could check for yourself that nothing is
being made up.

So are you saying that Rupert Murdoch's "Sky News" are lying ?

Or that their figures are correct, but that the UK Govt has made some
sort of "mistake"
in doling out £76 billion of taxpayers money, when you've proved it
here on UseNet
that they needn't have done ?

So which is it ?

A Murdoch lie, or a big Government mistake ?



The other small problem, of course, is that it has nothing to do with the
actual question.

The actual question was whether the UK is presently in a mess comparable to
that which existed prior to Thatcher.

I'm suggesting that any country that has to subsidise low wages to the extent
of 76bn a year with taxpayers money, is most definitely in a mess.
With a government which is clearly in the pockets of a small minority
of employers to the exclusion of everybody else.

Which is a situation which can't last indefinitely and which nobody should
welcome whoever they are.


michael adams

...




All of which was created by the last Labour government in their 13 years
of mis-rule. It will take time to correct this without causing a surge
in unemployment.
--
bert

In article , michael adams
writes

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:56:25 +0100, michael adams wrote:

So are you saying that Rupert Murdoch's "Sky News" are lying ?

Frankly, I'd double-check the date, let alone the weather forecast.

But I snipped it because it was irrelevant, as I explained in the post
you've just replied to.

The other small problem, of course, is that it has nothing to do with
the actual question.

The actual question was whether the UK is presently in a mess comparable
to that which existed prior to Thatcher.

Correct.

And you chose to ignore it.

Here's some clues...

Three-day week. Winter of discontent. 24% inflation. Sterling
devaluation. IMF bailout.


And here's my clue. What do you think the current rate of Unemployment would be
right now in the UK, if employers weren't being subsidised to the tune of
£ 76bn to keep people off the dole ? Jobs which in many instances
presumably wouldn't even exist ?

So much for "Labour Isn't Working".

Labour created this system
Despite already using up £billions of oil revenue to what purpose exactly ?

Labour were in power at the time and Healey Chancellor won a cabinet
battle with Wedgewood-Benn for treasury control of the revenues. Wb
wanted a sovereign fund similar to Norway. Healey just wanted to pay
today's bills.
Today's News

quote

Draw up 40% cuts plans, ministers told

Some government departments are told to prepare for a 40% cut in their budgets
as Chancellor George Osborne launches his spending review.

/quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

This is what you mean, I take it, by "successful government"

Sorting out a mess often calls fro drastic remedies
Presumably you would be happy to see national debt continuing to rise
beyond the £1.5tr it is now.
Or maybe to quote from a much quoted film

"I'm All Right Jack, so that's O.K ?"

Which was from a shop steward in the file IIRC.

michael adams

...




--
bert

In article , michael adams
writes

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:24:49 +0100, michael adams wrote:

The majority of self styled working class people certainly weren't
^^^^^^^^^^^
getting fed up with unions, wild cat strikes, sympathy strikes, picket
lines, flying pickets, closed shops or any of those things.

Yeh, I think you've got it nailed there.

quote

Last Updated: Thursday, 25 January 2007, 13:06 GMT

" According to a survey of social attitudes, 57% of adults in the UK
claim to be
working class. "

/quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6295743.stm

So that's a clear majority of 57% considered themselves to be working class
as late as 2007

That doesn't say anything about their attitudes to the continuous
strikes in the 60s and 70s.
So how big do you think the majority was,in the 50's,60's,and 70's ?

Another question that will go unanswered, no doubt.


michael adams

...
I liked the interview by John Prescott of a teenager on a sink estate.
Do you think of yourself as working class he asked?
Oh no she replied, I don't work
--
bert

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:23:30 +0100, michael adams wrote:

" According to a survey of social attitudes, 57% of adults in the UK
claim to be working class. "

Lovely, an' all.

So if that had anything at all to do with supporting unions, how come
in 2005 only 35% voted Labour, in 2010 29%, and this year 30%?

What's that got to do with anything ?

Seems they didn't take that label into the polling booth with them.

You previously agreed with me when I posted

The majority of self styled working class people certainly weren't
^^^^^^^^^^^
getting fed up with unions, wild cat strikes, sympathy strikes, picket
lines, flying pickets, closed shops or any of those things.

Yeh, I think you've got it nailed there.

To repeat "I think you've got it nailed there."

Clearly, I was a bit too subtle for you.

Only to suddenly change your mind, and attempt to move the goalposts
when you realise just how many people actually consider themselves to be
working class.

Do you have the first clue about surveys?
"Are you a. working class, b. middle class, c. upper class"

But would you call that "self-styled working class"? I wouldn't...

Oh, and btw - if such a large percentage of the population weren't fed up
of the unions etc, how come only 36% voted Labour in '79?

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
But you do realise secret ballots for any kind of industrial action
have been the law for some 30 years now?

yes and that's why I believe in secret ballots beign done the way the
are now. Because a person can be intimidted either way to raise or not
raise your hand for any vote.

Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily intimidated
by a few militants.

You are so naive.
Does this ring true to you, dave?

Would you personally be easy to intimidate by a few when surrounded by
your pals?

The intimidation takes palace before any ballot or show of hands. Miners
were an extremely loyal group, something which was nurtured and
respected by Gormley but taken for granted and abuse by Scargill
Of course your experience is limited to the comfy world of the BBC.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily
intimidated by a few militants.

I bet it would be easy to intimidate you, all they need do is chuck a
few bricks through your house windows, why would a miner care less about
his family than you (probably) do?

Not surprisingly you are missing the point.

Miners and others were said to be intimidated at a 'show of hands vote'
into voting for action they didn't want to, by a few militants. Hence the
need for a secret vote.

They had already been "persuaded". The vote was a charade.
Or are you suggesting they knew they'd get a brick through their window if
they voted against?

Quite probably, and yes they did. How do I know? Because I was brought
up in the North East. Now tell us about your life experience Dave.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 12:03:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
But you do realise secret ballots for any kind of industrial action
have been the law for some 30 years now?

yes and that's why I believe in secret ballots beign done the way
the are now. Because a person can be intimidted either way to raise
or not raise your hand for any vote.

Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily
intimidated by a few militants.

Wouldn't know myself, I've not be a miner. I remeber this and I would
certainly be intimidated by the few or one that did this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...ewsid_2512000/
2512469.stm

What has that got to do with intimidation at a show of hands vote?



Does this ring true to you, dave?

Does what ring true ?


Would you personally be easy to intimidate by a few when surrounded by
your pals?

That makes little sense if any sense.

How? It's been said here that on a show of hands vote, many will be
intimidated into voting yes by a few militants. Hence the need for secret
ballots. I just asked if it would apply to you. Or any others on here.


As it depends on the strenght of your pals too. Not that Hitler being
one person could intimidate anyone !

In his early days, Hitler managed to get majority support through the
strength of his oratory. Didn't need to intimidate anyone - although he
obviously did later.

You must be ****ing joking. He had an army of "brown shirts" They had
running battles with communist supporters in the streets. At his
political rallies anyone dissenting was beaten up by his heavies.
--
bert

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:28:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions,

No one ever said that.

what accounts for the present mess?

There is no present mess.

The bulk of the current downsides are due to that fool
Brown deregulating the banks and the worst of them
having to be bailed out by govt when the **** hit the
fan, as it always does sometime.

"Adrian" wrote in message ...

Oh, and btw - if such a large percentage of the population weren't fed up
of the unions etc, how come only 36% voted Labour in '79?

Oh and nothing.

I already explained that in detail earlier in the thread. It's not really my fault if
you suffer
from comprehension, or short term memory problems, now is it ?

They'd had enough of "Sunny Jim", that's true enough. Who was forever promising
to deliver the unions and was failing to do so. His Heathrow press conference following
the Guadaloupe summit, regaling shivering reporters in a winter bound
Heathrow with his tales of swimming in the warm Caribbean between sessions
is what prompted Larry Lamb to run to the wholly aprochryphal
"Crisis what Crisis ?" headline in the next day's "Sun".

Elections are there to be lost as well as won and it was a combination of
a wholly complacent "Sunny Jim" who should have gone in the autumn
but didn't, and accelerated and guaranteed Council House sales, what
swung it.

from Wiki

quote

In the summer before the Winter of Discontent, the minority Labour government's fortunes
in the opinion polls had been improving and suggested that they could gain an overall
majority
in the event of a general election being held. However, on 7 September 1978, Callaghan
announced that no general election would be held that year. Callaghan's failure to call
an
election would ultimately prove to be a costly mistake for his government.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

quote

As I said Sunny Jim might possibly have won a GE had he gone to the country in the
autumn. Thatchers victory is totally down to him along with the carrot of council
house sales Just as her successive victories were down to the Falklands, and self
inflicted wounds courtesy of Michael Foot, Looney Benn and the Welsh Windbag.
With the unemployment stats fiddled by transferring claimamts onto enhanced
sickness benefit subsidised by oil revenues.


michael adams

....

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Ok. Give one recent example of a strike where greed was the reason.

The most recent tube strike.

Tell us the facts about this greed

Easy, goons getting paid £50k to 'drive' trains
that are perfectly capable of driving themselves.

You've not explained what the greed is they're on strike for

Just did, they want more money. Those 'drivers'
already get too much for what they don't do.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/15 13:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:28:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?
Running out of scapegoats?

damage was permanent. Now manufacturing and mining have moved to cheaper
places in the world.

That was always going to happen regardless of the unions.

The main permanent damage that wasnt always going
to happen was stupidities like having drivers on trains
that are quite capable of driving themselves. Those
can't move to cheaper places in the world.

Welfare means no one will work for far east wages anymore, and that's
that.

Yes, but welfare isn't due to unions.

Globalisation was inevitable, and only Luddite Lefties couldn't see it.

And so was the movement of manufacturing and mining
once the cost of transport allowed the lower cost labor
and better mining situations to be exploited.

"bert" wrote in message ...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 12:03:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
But you do realise secret ballots for any kind of industrial action
have been the law for some 30 years now?

yes and that's why I believe in secret ballots beign done the way
the are now. Because a person can be intimidted either way to raise
or not raise your hand for any vote.

Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily
intimidated by a few militants.

Wouldn't know myself, I've not be a miner. I remeber this and I would
certainly be intimidated by the few or one that did this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...ewsid_2512000/
2512469.stm

What has that got to do with intimidation at a show of hands vote?



Does this ring true to you, dave?

Does what ring true ?


Would you personally be easy to intimidate by a few when surrounded by
your pals?

That makes little sense if any sense.

How? It's been said here that on a show of hands vote, many will be
intimidated into voting yes by a few militants. Hence the need for secret
ballots. I just asked if it would apply to you. Or any others on here.


As it depends on the strenght of your pals too. Not that Hitler being
one person could intimidate anyone !

In his early days, Hitler managed to get majority support through the
strength of his oratory. Didn't need to intimidate anyone - although he
obviously did later.

You must be ****ing joking. He had an army of "brown shirts" They had running battles
with communist supporters in the streets. At his political rallies anyone dissenting
was beaten up by his heavies.

German federal election, March 1933
November 1932 ? 5 March 1933 ? November 1933


All 647 seats in the Reichstag
324 seats needed for a majority
Turnout 88.74%
First party Second party Third party

Leader ......Adolf Hitler..........Otto Wels.....Ernst Thälmann
Party........NSDAP ................SPD ..........KPD
Seats won....288 ..................120............ 81
Popular vote 17,277,...............180 7,516,243...4,848,058

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...on,_March_1933

So while he didn't command a majority the Nazis were by far the
largest party. Which is what he based his "mandate" and subsequent
repressive measures on.


michael adams

....

On 21/07/15 18:44, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/07/2015 18:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily
intimidated by a few militants.

I bet it would be easy to intimidate you, all they need do is chuck a
few bricks through your house windows, why would a miner care less about
his family than you (probably) do?

Not surprisingly you are missing the point.

Miners and others were said to be intimidated at a 'show of hands vote'
into voting for action they didn't want to, by a few militants. Hence the
need for a secret vote.

Or are you suggesting they knew they'd get a brick through their
window if
they voted against?


Why are you acting thick?

Its not acting. It's a serious case of Marxism. Delusions of persecution
and disconnects from reality are common symptoms

Have you been to see a doctor as you seem to be behaving in an odd
manner and I think you need to investigate.

The main delusion of Marxism - which is a variety of narcissistic
personality disorder - is that the person suffering knows they are
completely in the right by being on the Left, so no one can tell them
anything. Especially a professionally trained doctor.

Plowman, a suitable case for treatment?



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

michael adams wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?

Sorry, are you suggesting they're even vaguely comparable?

At the moment, the taxpayer is subsidising employers profits to the tune
of £76 billion per annum,

Easy to claim...

as a result of the starvation level wages being paid to their non union
workers

There is no starvation in Britain, the problem is obesity, not starvation.

" There are some estimates that whilst £8bn on benefits goes to the
unemployed, an estimated £76bn goes to people who are working."

the quote is from Rupert Murdoch's Sky News

Just because one of Murdoch's **** rags claims something...

http://news.sky.com/story/1513826/wo...f-welfare-cuts

As a matter of interest do you know how much taxpayers money governments
prior to 1979 had to dole out to people who were actually in employment ?

There was no had to.

A figure to the nearest ten billion will do.